I don't think extreme force should be used. Maybe military stealth to recover captured military canines. In any case, if the animals are being mistreated or harmed after capture, then there should be some sort of retaliation. We should protect working animals. I don't think we should go overboard doing so, but we should use reasonable measures.
The enemies of the United States need to understand that it is not acceptable to mess with a canine member of the United States Armed Forces.The best way to stress this is to respond with force.Most members of the armed forces see canines as equal members of the unit so it is just as important to protect them.
When it's a terror cell that has plagued the planet for years, yes, you can justify military force over a canine. Really it's a vehicle for justification more than it is the cause of needing to use military force, but I'm in favor of these guys getting whacked whenever it's possible to do so.
Yes, the US should respond to the capture of a military canine with military force, because there is no reason for the Taliban to have taken our dog, other than just to keep it to say that they did. The US should respond because the chances are, they will mistreat the dog and keep it as a symbol.
The military has a responsibility to back up animals in the service because there is an implicit agreement between the animal and it's human friends that they will look out for each other. The dog can't agree to be left behind or all that fancy "you mission should you choose to accept it stuff."
Plus the U.S. Military would be willing to use force to recover a U.S. paperclip ;)
No, the United States should not respond to the capture of a military canine with military force. While I realize it's distressing that military equipment (and yes, that's what the dog is) has been obtained by the enemy, there's not a whole lot we can do about it that won't endanger human lives. Let it go, chicas.